United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
December 20, 2005.
CATERPILLAR, INC., Plaintiff,
PAN WORLD BRANDS LIMITED, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: BYRON CUDMORE, Magistrate Judge
Telephonic conference held with counsel for Plaintiff,
Caterpillar, Inc., Mary E. Innis, Edward G. Wierzbicki, Roy
Crozier, and Timothy L. Bertschy, and counsel for Defendant, Pan
World Brands Limited, Keith J. Braskich, David G. Lubben, Rick
Russo, Michael Block, and Andrew Mold, concerning the Court's
Order Expediting Discovery . Counsel for Defendant, David G.
Lubben, Keith J. Braskich, and Rick Russo directed to enter their
The Court is provided with background information on litigation
between the parties in London, England. The litigation in London,
England has been ongoing since at least October 11, 2005. The
Court was also advised of litigation filed by Defendant herein in Delaware on
October 12, 2005. The Court is very disappointed that Plaintiff
failed to bring to the Court's attention in their Ex Parte
Motion for Expedited Discovery  and Memorandum in support
thereof  the facts pertaining to the pending litigation in
London. The Court is also disappointed that some of the facts
pertaining to the parties' settlement/mediation discussions
that were held in November and December of 2005, were not
included in Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery
. These omitted facts should have been included by Plaintiff
to allow the Court to properly rule on Plaintiff's Ex Parte
Motion for Expedited Discovery .
Based upon the above, the following is ordered:
1) The Court hereby stays the Order Expediting
Discovery  pending further order of Court;
2) Defendant is directed to file a written response
concerning Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for
Expedited Discovery  on or before December 29,
2005. The status of the litigation in London, England
should be included in Defendant's response;
3) The parties are directed to meet and confer and
discuss a proposed protective order for the instant
litigation and tender same to the Court, or file a status report on the
issue, on or before December 29, 2005;
4) The parties are directed to meet and confer and
discuss the Defendant's desire to seal various
aspects of the instant litigation, keeping in mind
the Court's concern that the public policy is all
litigation is presumed to be open to public scrutiny.
A status report on this issue is directed to be filed
by December 29, 2005;
5) The parties are also directed to meet and confer
concerning Plaintiff's requested expedited discovery
requests, the six points, and see if any agreed
middle ground can be reached. A status report on this
issue is directed to be filed by December 29, 2005.
Upon receipt of Defendant's responses due December 29, 2005,
the Court may direct Plaintiff to reply, the Court may rule based
upon the submitted materials, or a telephonic conference may be
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.